Food Security and Conflict - speech and debate

Food Security and Conflict debate by Food Tank. Keynote speaker: David Beckmann, president of Bread for the World.

"The main concentration of world hunger now is in countries that are struggling with conflict."

---

Risk of riots linked to food prices

---

In 19th century Bavaria rye prices correlated to property crime rates (see Correlations from weather to sociology). When food prices spiked in 2008 commentators were smart enough to mention this might have something to do with the riots across the 3rd world (see World's poor are up in arms over food prices). The first half of 2011 has seen many riots in Africa and the Middle East and again it has been pointed out that at the same time we happen to see a food price spike on world markets (see "The Great Food Crisis of 2011" by Lester Brown and Middle East riots for food, interventions for oil?). Now a statistical study of the food price index and the riot frequencies is backing up the link.

Working with the hypothesis that "widespread unrest does not arise from long-standing political failings of the system, but rather from its sudden perceived failure to provide essential security to the population" Lagi and colleagues correlated food prices to riots. When marked on a graph of the UN food price index riots clearly cluster around price spikes. Most of the riot incidents that fall more or less outside a spike can be explained by additional extraordinary circumstances.

Food price index graphed from 2004-2011. Red lines mark riot incidents. The chance that the "Arab Spring" should have randomly coincided with the price peak is estimated to be less than six percent, even less if riots in each country are considered individually.

The researchers do not conclude "high food prices cause riots". What they say is expensive food could be one factor among others setting the stage for riots. When populations are hungry, it takes lesser trigger incidents to kick-start a riot.

"These observations are consistent with a hypothesis that high global food prices are a precipitating condition for social unrest."
 - Marco Lagi to Technology Review.

Two main causes for recent food price increases are named:

1. Investor speculation in food prices (US market deregulated)
2. Cultivation of biofuel crops on arable land (given subsidies)

The researchers are confident enough to predict "food riots occur above a threshold of the FAO price index of 210". If prices are persistently higher than that they speculate global unrest will occur. (Although we're currently above, don't panic yet - it's assumed to be a "bubble" created by investor speculation, soon to bust, driving prices below riot levels for some time.)

Same graph with inflation corrected price graph, trend lines and riot thresholds added. The trends (average price index estimates) are extrapolated to exceed the riot thresholds some time during 2012 or 2013.

The authors sent a warning letter to the US government just four days before Mohamed Bouazizi set himself on fire in Tunisia.

Sources: Technology Review / The Cause Of Riots And The Price of Food and the original paper:
Marco Lagi, Karla Z. Bertrand, Yaneer Bar-Yam (2011). The Food Crises and Political Instability in North Africa and the Middle East Physics and Society DOI: arxiv.org/abs/1108.2455

---

Climate news: Change linked to food security, emissions up, denialism alive and well, scientists threatened

I'm a bit behind on taking note of the climate change news. First the bad plus the ridiculous:

CO2 emissions are setting records while old time denier release auto-biographic film

Carbon dioxide emissions hit record levels following global financial crisis lows (Reuters / IEA sees record CO2 emissions in 2010). Apparently now Westerners buy even more goods produced by coal dependent emerging economies. Meanwhile Bjørn Lomborg (see A history of skepticism: Bjørn Lomborg) released a film titled after his last book (Cool it) yet judging from from the mildly forgiving reviews is simply an advertisement of the person. What a depressing combination of news.

Not exactly battlefield news. But it gets worse.

Australian climate scientists given protection following death threats and harassment

We should defend the rights of stupid people as well as people who are simply wrong and let them speak their mind. And even make films that advocate dangerous policies like Lomborgs. But in Australia the anti-environmentalists have reached a new low by threatening scientists whose research helped clear up the uncertainties previously surrounding climatology. Shocking. Remotely understandable if the threats had been directed towards politicians - but threatening the researchers!? (ABC News / Death threats sent to top climate scientists, The Sydney Morning Herald / Death threats to scientists)

Science journal article links climate change to food security

Can't say the study's conclusions comes as much of a surprise. (Science / Climate Trends and Global Crop Production Since 1980, New Scientist / Crop yields fall as temperatures rise, The New York Post / A Warming Planet Struggles to Feed Itself)

"In most places we see temperature trends, and they have significantly reduced yield growth."
 - Wolfram Schlenker

Since I'm not blogging that much on climate these days I really hope the next post will be a bit more encouraging. But that depends on people not acting selfishly or stupid.

(Cross-posted at TH!NK)

Middle East riots for food, interventions for oil?

It's a historical truth that when food prices rise, conflict increases. So it's no wonder that the spike in the cost of agricultural commodities in recent months has been a contributing factor to revolution in the Middle East. As the map below shows, people in relatively poor countries--including Egypt, Tunisia and others in the developing world--spend a much higher percentage of their incomes on food.

© 2011 Time Inc. Source: U.S. Department of Agriculture. The percentage of household consumption expenditures going to food is one indicator of riot prone countries.

"We're in Libya because of oil. And I think both Japan and the nuclear technology and Libya and this dependence that we have upon imported oil have both once again highlighted the need for the United States to have a renewable energy agenda going forward. [The US is right to intervene] but it all goes back to the 5 million barrels of oil that we import from (the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries) on a daily basis."

- Ed Markey, Democrat.

Sachs, Brown et al comment on Egypt, Tunesia etc

January and February of 2011 have seen the people of Tunisia and Egypt in unprecedented protests. While it seems the overwhelming sentiment of the people in the streets are for less repression and corruption, more freedom and democracy Western commentators have mentioned the danger of radical Muslim influences. Fortunately, this weekend a few voices of reason were allowed some space.

"This isn't just about the Muslim Brotherhood and it isn't just about politics. [...] This is about hunger, about poverty, about food production about a change of world economy. [...] The demographic change is very significant [...poor African states already heavily reliant on food imports because of weak farming sectors] cannot afford to live on imports of grains at world prices, and those prices are going to remain high and unstable [...] It's perfectly understandable how this spark went off, although it's not simple to predict when it's going to happen [...] This is a global ecological phenomenon, of rising world populations, increasing climate unsustainability and pushing up against the barriers of food productivity in many places. [...] My rule of thumb is the dry lands are the most combustible part of the world, all of the Sahel to the Horn of Africa, across the Red Sea to Yemen, Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan. This is all one vast ecological zone of extraordinary stress, with a lot of war in it already. [...] This is one large swathe of 10,000 miles of potential instability"
- Jeffrey Sachs, Earth Institute

"Many governments are suffering from demographic fatigue, unable to cope with the steady shrinkage in cropland and freshwater supply per person or to build schools fast enough for the swelling ranks of children."
- Lester Brown, Earth Policy Institute

"Countries with very youthful age structures have an elevated likelihood of experiencing a civil conflict."
- Richard Cincotta, US demographer

Sources: AFP / Food, demography are invisible drivers in Egypt uprising, Reuters / INTERVIEW-Arab protests show hunger threat to world-economist.

"The Great Food Crisis of 2011" by Lester Brown

As the new year begins, the price of wheat is setting an all-time high in the United Kingdom. Food riots are spreading across Algeria. Russia is importing grain to sustain its cattle herds until spring grazing begins. India is wrestling with an 18-percent annual food inflation rate, sparking protests. China is looking abroad for potentially massive quantities of wheat and corn. The Mexican government is buying corn futures to avoid unmanageable tortilla price rises.

Lester's article explains how "both sides of the food supply/demand equation" raise prizes mainly through environmental degradation of arable land, global warming, population growth, increasing consumption and related factors. Disturbingly high numbers ad libitum. It finishes:

The unrest of these past few weeks is just the beginning. It is no longer conflict between heavily armed superpowers, but rather spreading food shortages and rising food prices -- and the political turmoil this would lead to -- that threatens our global future. Unless governments quickly redefine security and shift expenditures from military uses to investing in climate change mitigation, water efficiency, soil conservation, and population stabilization, the world will in all likelihood be facing a future with both more climate instability and food price volatility. If business as usual continues, food prices will only trend upward.

Read the whole article at Foreign Policy or in Danish at Information.

What does climate change have to do with conflict?

Rebecca Sargent at a piece of conflict has been reading CLIMATE CHANGE, CONFLICT AND FRAGILITY - Understanding the linkages, shaping effective responses, a report by Dan Smith and Janani Vivekananda of International Alert. (It's from November 2009 and a copy of it has been waiting on my hard disk for me to read it for quite a while now. But why not check out Rebecca's take on it right away?)

Part one - Exacerbation of conflict in fragile states during climate change

One needs only see the example of the Haitian earthquake, the current flooding in Pakistan or even the aftermath of hurricane Katrina in the southern US to know that extreme weather can have an effect on peace and security in an area. [...] Current international negotiations on reducing global warming and responding to climate change almost entirely ignore the aspect of this heightened risk of conflict. [...] Managing water supply is vital. Not only is it necessary for human life, but water shortages also affect agriculture causing increased food insecurity, especially for the poor. [...] Water shortages and food insecurity often lead to violent conflict where poverty, weak governance, political marginalization and corruption reign supreme. [...] Migration of people increases the likelihood of conflict, as newcomers are seen as an unwanted burden that compound social pressures or even transfer conflict from one location to another. Attempting to block immigration with regulations and physical barriers may exacerbate the conflict risk.

Part two - Policy and adaptation recommendations for reducing conflict risk

Good governance means increased resilience to violent conflict or poverty. [...] Many rich countries will be simultaneously shifting to low-carbon economies to meet demands on climate change adaptability. This shift must be peace-friendly and supportive of the adaptive development happening in poorer countries. For example, a switch to bio-fuel in richer countries caused food prices to rise by 30% in 2008, which directly caused violence in over 30 countries.

Rebecca's final comment isn't from the report:

If these crises are compounded and not isolated to one location within a nation, or result in large-scale destruction of entire areas, even rich states may be unable to deal with the crises that emerge. The expectations in richer states for action is higher, therefore state failure may be reacted to with all the more intense violence.

"This report explores the complexities of responding to climate change in fragile and conflict affected contexts. It highlights the interaction between the impact of climate change and the social and political realities in which people live and stresses that it is this that will determine their capacity to adapt. To be effective, the goal of policy responses must be to address the political dimension of adapting to climate change, and the underlying causes of vulnerability where the state is unable to carry out its core functions. The report sets out five policy objectives and some key observations on getting the institutional structures right in order to achieve this goal. The reports findings urge policy makers to look beyond technical fixes and to address the interlinked political, social and institutional constraints to effective responses."

Figure 1, page 10, chapter 2.3 "Climate change in fragile states".

The report exists in a context of development aid hence to some degree focus on how foreign aid from rich countries should change. From the Conclusion:

It is wrong to imply that henceforth there will be old-style development with adaptation on top. [...] it seems likely that much and probably most expenditure on adaptation will simply be indistinguishable from expenditure on development because the activities will be fused.

The over all conclusion is summed up in five bullet points:

1. Adaptation to climate change needs to be conflict-sensitive.
2. Peacebuilding needs to be climate-proof.
3. A low-carbon economy must be supportive of development and peace.
4. Poor countries’ social capacity to understand and manage climate and conflict risks must be strengthened.
5. Climate-related migration should be planned for and coped with peacefully.
   

US National Security Strategy 2010

The White House recently released its National Security Strategy report and the UN DISPACH were happy to report the Millennium Development Goals are in it. From page 39, chapter "Promote Dignity by Meeting Basic Needs":

The freedom that America stands for includes freedom from want. Basic human rights cannot thrive in places where human beings do not have access to enough food, or clean water, or the medicine they need to survive. The United States has embraced the United Nation’s Millennium Development Goals and is working with others in pursuit of the eradication of extreme poverty—efforts that are particularly critical to the future of nations and peoples of Africa.

The report is about how the USA will get the world it wants. Still sounds a bit strong-arm there but otherwise a somewhat comforting read. I.e. from part I " Overview of National Security Strategy", page 3:

we must focus American engagement on strengthening international institutions and galvanizing the collective action that can serve common interests such as combating violent extremism; stopping the spread of nuclear weapons and securing nuclear materials; achieving balanced and sustainable economic growth; and forging cooperative solutions to the threat of climate change, armed conflict, and pandemic disease. [...] Constructive national steps on issues ranging from nuclear security to climate change must be incentivized, so nations that choose to do their part see the benefits of responsible action.

Page 5, chapter "Advancing Top National Security Priorities":

our efforts to shape an international order that promotes a just peace must facilitate cooperation capable of addressing the problems of our time. This international order will support our interests, but it is also an end that we seek in its own right. New challenges hold out the prospect of opportunity, but only if the international community breaks down the old habits of suspicion to build upon common interests. A global effort to combat climate change must draw upon national actions to reduce emissions and a commitment to mitigate their impact. Efforts to prevent conflicts and keep the peace in their aftermath can stop insecurity from spreading. Global cooperation to prevent the spread of pandemic disease can promote public health.

Part II. "Strategic Approach", "The Strategic Environment—The World as It Is", page 8:

The gravest danger to the American people and global security continues to come from weapons of mass destruction, particularly nuclear weapons. The space and cyberspace capabilities that power our daily lives and military operations are vulnerable to disruption and attack. Dependence upon fossil fuels constrains our options and pollutes our environment. Climate change and pandemic disease threaten the security of regions and the health and safety of the American people. Failing states breed conflict and endanger regional and global security. Global criminal networks foment insecurity abroad and bring people and goods across our own borders that threaten our people. [...] Profound cultural and demographic tensions, rising demand for resources, and rapid urbanization could reshape single countries and entire regions.

Still part II, chapter "The Strategic Approach—The World We Seek", page 10:

The United States must ensure that we have the world’s best-educated workforce, a private sector that fosters innovation, and citizens and businesses that can access affordable health care to compete in a globalized economy. We must transform the way that we use energy — diversifying supplies, investing in innovation, and deploying clean energy technologies. By doing so, we will enhance energy security, create jobs, and fight climate change.

And page 11, chapter "Pursuing Comprehensive Engagement":

Our ability to advance constructive cooperation is essential to the security and prosperity of specific regions, and to facilitating global cooperation on issues ranging from violent extremism and nuclear proliferation, to climate change, and global economic instability — issues that challenge all nations, but that no one nation alone can meet. [...] Our diplomacy and development capabilities must help prevent conflict, spur economic growth, strengthen weak and failing states, lift people out of poverty, combat climate change and epidemic disease, and strengthen institutions of democratic governance.

Page 12, chapter "Promoting a Just and Sustainable International Order":

we will enhance international capacity to prevent conflict, spur economic growth, improve security, combat climate change, and address the challenges posed by weak and failing states. [...] . Force will sometimes be necessary to confront threats. Technology will continue to bring with it new dangers. Poverty and disease will not be completely abolished. Oppression will always be with us.

Fast forward to part III. "Advancing Our Interests", chapter "Enhance Science, Technology, and Innovation":

As long as we are dependent on fossil fuels, we need to ensure the security and free flow of global energy resources. But without significant and timely adjustments, our energy dependence will continue to undermine our security and prosperity. This will leave us vulnerable to energy supply disruptions and manipulation and to changes in the environment on an unprecedented scale.
The United States has a window of opportunity to lead in the development of clean energy technology. If successful, the United States will lead in this new Industrial Revolution in clean energy that will be a major contributor to our economic prosperity. If we do not develop the policies that encourage the private sector to seize the opportunity, the United States will fall behind and increasingly become an importer of these new energy technologies.
We have already made the largest investment in clean energy in history, but there is much more to do to build on this foundation. We must continue to transform our energy economy, leveraging private capital to accelerate deployment of clean energy technologies that will cut greenhouse gas emissions, improve energy efficiency, increase use of renewable and nuclear power, reduce the dependence of vehicles on oil, and diversify energy sources and suppliers. We will invest in research and next-generation technology, modernize the way we distribute electricity, and encourage the usage of transitional fuels, while moving towards clean energy produced at home.

"Accelerate Sustainable Development", page 34:

We will shape the international architecture and work with our global partners to address these challenges, and increase our investments and engagement to transition to a low-carbon growth trajectory, support the resilience of the poorest nations to the effects of climate change, and strengthen food security. We must also pursue potential “game changers” for development such as new vaccines, weather-resistant seed varieties, and green energy technologies.

"Promote Democracy and Human Rights Abroad", page 38:

d we will institutionalize transparent practices in international aid flows, international banking and tax policy, and private sector engagement around natural resources to make it harder for officials to steal and to strengthen the efforts of citizens to hold their governments accountable.

"International Order", page 40:

without effective mechanisms to forge international cooperation, challenges that recognize no borders—such as climate change, pandemic disease, and transnational crime—will persist and potentially spread.

Page 47, chapter "Sustain Broad Cooperation on Key Global Challenges":

The danger from climate change is real, urgent, and severe. The change wrought by a warming planet will lead to new conflicts over refugees and resources; new suffering from drought and famine; catastrophic natural disasters; and the degradation of land across the globe. The United States will therefore confront climate change based upon clear guidance from the science, and in cooperation with all nations — for there is no effective solution to climate change that does not depend upon all nations taking responsibility for their own actions and for the planet we will leave behind.

Page 50:

The United States is an Arctic Nation with broad and fundamental interests in the Arctic region, where we seek to meet our national security needs, protect the environment, responsibly manage resources, account for indigenous communities, support scientific research, and strengthen international cooperation on a wide range of issues.

Signed Barack Obama, The White House. (But bold emphasises added by me.)

Food security: climate change and sustainable development (TH!NK2½ part I)

I and the other TH!NKers are moving from part 2 to part 3, from climate change and COP15 to sustainable development and the Millennium Development Goals. Both topics are multifaceted, overlapping and quite complex.
In fact, apart from climate change essentially being a sustainability issue, sustainable development was addressed directly several times during TH!NK2. Including by the good old “skeptic” who appeared shocked COP15 had dealt with “international economic development policy”. I strongly suspect climate change will be mentioned more than once during TH!NK3 too.
Luckily, the highly esteemed scientific journal Science published a review article this month: Food Security: The Challenge of Feeding 9 Billion People. Food security is one of those topics that is extremely important and linked to both climate change and sustainable development. As well as to security policy which is something I have been blogging about at my own Ecowar. It's a good article, summing up on the most important aspects while providing reliable figures.
To sum it up: A growing population with an increasing consumption will have to get by on an exceedingly exploited Earth. This will lead to crises, challenges and tough choices. A global political effort is needed to solve the most pressing problems and take advantage of the windows of opportunity: closing the yield gap, reducing waste, changing diets and more.

The yield gap

The first subject is enormous and actually mixed into most parts of the article. To “close the yield gap” means moving from the harvest we do achieve to what we theoretically could achieve if our current knowledge and technology was utilized. They mention a political aspect as well:

“Food production in developing countries can be severely affected by market interventions in the developed world, such as subsidies or price supports.”

Just look at the subsidization of sugar beet farming in the EU, US and Australia which makes the otherwise sound sugar cane farming in the 3^rd world less profitable. The chapter on the yield gap also addresses something that is central to the whole sustainability discussion:

“Food production has important negative “externalities,” namely effects on the environment or economy that are not reflected in the cost of food.”

Take the difference between a liter of “normal” aka “industrial” milk on the one hand and a liter of organic milk on the other. The latter is a bit more expensive. Having been buying organic food for many years I have more than once been ridiculed by someone who just saw a TV show claiming organic food isn't more healthy that other types of food. Well, my answer usually is that “normal” food is cheap because you really don't pay for it. You don't pay for the pesticides you indirectly put in our common ground water, the global warming you cause by the energy intensive production of fertilizers, the woes of future generations who will not be able to sustain this “normal” production et cetera, et cetera.
And contrary to what is sometimes claimed, sustainability isn't synonymous with a drop in production:

“One study of 286 agricultural sustainability projects in developing countries, involving 12.6 million chiefly small-holder farmers on 37 million hectares, found an average yield increase of 79% across a very wide variety of systems and crop types”

Increased food production

Part of closing the yield gap – or rather, raising the bar – is the whole genetic modification issue. So far what we have seen from that opportunity is decreased sustainability. Because the first large scale GM crops have been optimized for profits through aggressive patenting, monopolies, design for intensively industrialized farming and reliance on pesticides. What needs to be developed is crops with beneficial traits (such as drought resistance and less greenhouse gas side-effects in both cultivation and livestock digestion). Available to 3^rd world farmers without a debt trap attached.
Advances in genetic technology can help us take great strides in crop cultivation in general. One of the things we need to preserve to most efficiently take advantage of such technology is our natural biodiversity. Our ecosystem is a treasure trove of biochemistry that shouldn't be squandered away. Year 2010 is the United Nations International Year of Biodiversity because MDG number 7 included “achieving, by 2010, a significant reduction in the rate of loss” of biodiversity. As I have already complained, this goal has failed. Doubly painful since it is so integrally linked to the climate change issue.

Reducing food waste

Now there is an obvious solution, right. 30 to 40% of all food is wasted. Solve that problem and we're almost halfway!
Except in the developing world much waste is due to infrastructure limitations including lack of refrigeration. But installing refrigerators for 3 billion more people will consume enormous amounts of energy leading to increased greenhouse gas emissions and other problems.
In the 1^st world we are rich enough to throw away food for cosmetic reasons. We rely on dates printed on packaging, not an actual assessment of the freshness of our foods. And due to diseases caused by industrialization (mad cows et cetera) we feel forced to destroy food waste rather than compost it or feed it to livestock.
Lastly, we waste massive amounts of food by converting grain into meat. Since the conversion efficiency is about 10% why don't we try and go without eating for nine days after one day of meat? That would be a lesson. However, vegetarian zealots: back off. There is plenty of room for livestock by feeding with human food waste and grass, meat is a good source of protein, vitamins and minerals, livestock doubles as workforce in ploughing and transport plus produces manure.
The conclusion begins: “There is no simple solution to sustainably feeding 9 billion people.” No, obviously not. And we'll experience endless discussion, crises and conflict over the arable land we have left as well as over the way we manage it and divide it's harvests.

---

"Harvest" by seyed mostafa zamani

---

This article is also posted to my column at TH!NK ABOUT IT #2: Climate Change.

The article Food Security: The Challenge of Feeding 9 Billion People was brought to my attention by The Oil Drum. Thanks.

Godfray, H., Beddington, J., Crute, I., Haddad, L., Lawrence, D., Muir, J., Pretty, J., Robinson, S., Thomas, S., & Toulmin, C. (2010). Food Security: The Challenge of Feeding 9 Billion People Science, 327 (5967), 812-818 DOI: 10.1126/science.1185383

Expert: Climate Change causes wars

Jürgen Scheffran, a research scientist in the Program in Arms Control, Disarmament and International Security and the Center for Advanced BioEnergy Research at Illinois, is among those raising concerns that climate-change-related damage to global ecosystems and the resulting competition for natural resources may increasingly serve as triggers for wars and other conflicts in the future.

Jürgen Scheffran identifies four climate change trends that will destabilize countries:

• degradation of freshwater resources,


• food insecurity,


• natural disasters and


• environmental migration.

Darfur is mentioned as an example this is already happening.

"Large areas of Africa are suffering from scarcity of food and fresh water resources, making them more vulnerable to conflict."

Far from the stereotypical doom-sayer as often described by right wingers and science deniers this expert is more of an optimist:

"Although climate change bears a significant conflict potential, it can also transform the international system toward more cooperation if it is seen as a common threat that requires joint action. [...] the seeming conflict between environment and the economy will be best overcome with the recognition that protecting the climate in the best interest of the economy."

Biofuel dilemmas

People are realizing biofuels are no magic wand to our global carbon issues. What is quite obvious to anyone with a bit of training in systems ecology was confirmed this February by a study published in Science. I may or may not do a ResearchBlogging entry on it some time, but for now I do with these popularized versions:

• Clearing Land for Biofuels Makes Global Warming Worse


• Biofuels Are Bad for Feeding People and Combating Climate Change


• Biofuels make climate change worse, scientific study concludes

In short, sure biofuels draw energy from carbon produced in this cycle as opposed to a fossilized one, hence doesn't contribute directly to the greenhouse effect. But if used as an excuse to keep consuming and clearing forest it's a disaster - corn fields hold just a fraction of the carbon (and numerous other ecosystem services) a forest does, and if it competes with food production in a starving world, well... it's no rocket science.

March saw a number of warnings from people and organizations perhaps having read the above mentioned Science paper: Nestle in minding their (food not fuel) business (Biofuel boom threatens food supplies: Nestle), Professor Bob Watson a.o. (Top scientists warn against rush to biofuel, Biofuels threaten 'billions of lives'), Indian Finance Minister P. Chidambaram (Indian minister attacks biofuels), US Army veteran and rancher John Carter (The Clean Energy Scam) and many others. The last article is a quite lengthy TIME piece I can only recommend; it portrays the grotesque contrast between Brazil's long standing and relatively sensible and successful biofuel practice and how the US rapidly messes things up globally by their (not so capitalist) biofuel subsidies. I now know 20% of carbon emissions are due to deforestation and that the benefit of biofuel will only level the deforestation emissions in on average 400 years.

"There are real problems with the unsustainability of biofuels, [...cutting down rainforest to grow the crops is...] profoundly stupid". - John Beddington, UK government chief scientific adviser.

MSN Finance did an article on the market situation (Could we really run out of food?) - advising their readers to invest in agriculture and noting poor rice producing countries have begun imposing limitations to exports. None other than the world bank is in the choir (World Bank Expects More High Food Prices) warning us this is a situation we'll have to deal with in many years ahead and informs they almost doubled their agricultural loans.

"[...] you can now add "peak wheat" to your political and investment lexicon. And it's a lot worse [than peak oil.]" - Jon Markman, MSN Finance.

The number of ways that this situation can lead to conflicts are more than I can count. But don't give up your hybrid yet. Although biofuels are clearly part of the problem, they could be part of the solution as well. I'm thinking the science fiction like news of engineered bacteria and algae producing biofuel or making the existing processes more efficient (Breeding the Oil Bug and many others).

The article that kicked me off putting together this post was The Biggest Green Mistake. It's using hypertext the way hypertext was meant to be used (contrary to most media) meaning it links to tons of sources in the text. It's arguing we need more genetic engineering and radical technical solutions - I'm confident I don't fully agree but they are definitely onto something.

World's poor are up in arms over food prices

People are rioting in the streets over the spiralling cost of food, but what is causing the crisis?

[...]

There were street riots over the price of basic foods in Mexico and India last year, and in Jakarta, Indonesia, last week. China and Russia have slapped controls on food prices to prevent unrest and inflation. Low-income Americans are feeling the pinch of 10 per cent increases for bread, 19 per cent for milk. Italians boycotted pasta for a day last September in protest at a 7 per cent price ...

Read New Scientist / World's poor are up in arms over food prices (subscription required).

Danish bakery poster on rising bread prices. Doesn't mention "climate change" or "global warming" but blame the Chinese for buying our food, two years of bad harvests, biofuel, droughts in Southern Europe and empty granaries.

Nature: Is this what the world's coming to?

With climate change placing increasing pressure on environmental resources, it is now being viewed as a threat to national security.

History is littered with lessons from once-budding civilizations that crashed from their peak of prosperity. From the Anasazi of the southwestern United States to the Mayans of Mesoamerica1 and the ancient dynasties of eastern China2, environmental change has sounded the death knell throughout time for once-thriving civilizations already stressed by factors including high population growth, overexploitation of resources and excessive reliance on external trade. In many cases, severe drought or extreme cold has been enough to push societies to the brink of civil unrest, mass migration and warfare.

Meta note: Although I check out Nature.com every now and then (continuously with RSS, of course) Dr. Saleem H. Ali got to it first and indirectly notified me by posting it to his blog at Newsvine.com which I also subscribe to. Web 2.0 galore.

Many modern conflicts are food wars

Holistic approach built on food security can stabilize postwar societies

Source: ReliefWeb Press Releases: Many modern conflicts are food wars, say experts